Donald Norman III v. State
01-16-00359-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 3, 2017Background
- Donald Norman III was convicted of evading arrest with a vehicle and sentenced to 40 years in TDCJ.
- Norman timely appealed; appellate counsel was appointed and concluded the appeal was frivolous.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, asserting no reversible error after reviewing the record.
- Counsel informed Norman of his rights, provided record access, and offered a form to file a pro se response; Norman accessed the record but filed no response.
- The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the entire record for arguable grounds for appeal.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and instructed counsel to notify Norman of the result and his right to seek discretionary review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel properly moved to withdraw under Anders | Norman did not advance any specific challenge; no response submitted | Counsel argued the record contained no reversible error and the appeal was frivolous | Court concluded counsel met Anders requirements and granted withdrawal |
| Whether the court must independently review the record for arguable grounds | N/A (appellant did not identify issues) | Counsel asserted independent review would show no arguable issues | Court performed independent review and found no arguable grounds for appeal |
| Whether appellant received required notice/access to the record and right to file pro se response | Norman was given access and the opportunity to respond but did not | Counsel provided notice, record access, and a form motion for access; advised of right to file pro se response | Court found procedural protections satisfied; Norman filed no response |
| Whether appellant may seek further review after Anders disposition | N/A | Counsel noted appellant may pursue discretionary review on his own | Court noted appellant may file a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and required counsel to notify him |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishes procedures when counsel believes appeal is frivolous)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (counsel must provide professional evaluation of the record)
- Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (no pet.) (discusses appellate counsel’s duties under Anders)
- Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for appeal exist)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (court’s duty to assess existence of arguable grounds; notes discretionary review avenue)
- Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (appointed counsel must notify appellant of appeal outcome and availability of discretionary review)